Testosterone disrupts human collaboration by increasing egocentric choices

Nicholas D Wright, Bahador Bahrami, Emily Johnson, Gina Di Malta, Geraint Rees, Christopher D Frith, Raymond J Dolan, Nicholas D Wright, Bahador Bahrami, Emily Johnson, Gina Di Malta, Geraint Rees, Christopher D Frith, Raymond J Dolan

Abstract

Collaboration can provide benefits to the individual and the group across a variety of contexts. Even in simple perceptual tasks, the aggregation of individuals' personal information can enable enhanced group decision-making. However, in certain circumstances such collaboration can worsen performance, or even expose an individual to exploitation in economic tasks, and therefore a balance needs to be struck between a collaborative and a more egocentric disposition. Neurohumoral agents such as oxytocin are known to promote collaborative behaviours in economic tasks, but whether there are opponent agents, and whether these might even affect information aggregation without an economic component, is unknown. Here, we show that an androgen hormone, testosterone, acts as such an agent. Testosterone causally disrupted collaborative decision-making in a perceptual decision task, markedly reducing performance benefit individuals accrued from collaboration while leaving individual decision-making ability unaffected. This effect emerged because testosterone engendered more egocentric choices, manifest in an overweighting of one's own relative to others' judgements during joint decision-making. Our findings show that the biological control of social behaviour is dynamically regulated not only by modulators promoting, but also by those diminishing a propensity to collaborate.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Experimental design. (a) Pairs of female participants (dyads) attended on two separate days in a blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled cross-over design. Both dyad members received identical treatment order. (b) Participants had blood taken before treatment and testing. (c) During testing dyad members sat in the same room viewing separate monitors. In a 2-alternative forced choice, design gratings were presented at two intervals, one containing a target grating with increased contrast. Each participant initially responded without consultation, providing measures of individual decision-making (Sindiv). If they disagreed, a joint decision was requested, which provided a measure of collaborative decision-making (Scollective). (d) Example psychometric function for dyad 1 under placebo. Proportion of trials reported as second interval is plotted against target contrast difference. Highly sensitive observers give steep functions with large slope (S). Here individuals (Sindiv) are red and green, and the dyad (Scollective) blue.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Individuals derive a performance benefit from collaboration. The dyad's collaborative decisions were more sensitive (Scollective) than the individuals' decisions alone (Sindiv). Our metric for this performance benefit on the vertical axis is the difference between an individual's sensitivity and the cooperative sensitivity achieved by their dyad (Benefit of collaboration = Scollective− Sindiv). This benefit is attenuated by testosterone when collapsed across all 34 participants (Sindiv) and also when only the better (Smax) or worse (Smin) members of each dyad are included. All t-tests shown are paired. Error bars indicate s.e.m.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Testosterone disrupts collaboration by increasing the egocentricity of decision-making. Each member of the dyad announced the dyad's joint decision in half the trials where such a collaborative decision was required. The sensitivity of collaborative decision-making hinges on the distribution in weighting attributed to one's own and the other's opinions. For each participant, we measured this weighting by the ratio of times they agreed with themselves (egocentric decisions) to agreement with the other's opinion (allocentric decisions). An egocentric–allocentric ratio of 1 means that participants weight their own and the other's original judgement equally. On placebo, there is trend towards egocentricity bias (one-sample, t33 = 1.8, p < 0.1)—an egocentricity bias that becomes marked on testosterone (one-sample, t33 = 3.0, p = 0.005). We show a paired t-test for testosterone versus placebo (t33 = 2.4, p < 0.05). Error bars indicate s.e.m.

References

    1. Dugatkin L. A. 1997. Cooperation among animals: an evolutionary perspective. New York: Oxford University Press
    1. Gintis H., Bowles S., Boyd R. T., Fehr E. 2005. Moral sentiments and material interests: the foundations of cooperation in economic life. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
    1. Axelrod R. 1984. The evolution of cooperation. New York, NY: Basic Books
    1. Bahrami B., Olsen K., Latham P. E., Roepstorff A., Rees G., Frith C. D. 2010. Optimally interacting minds. Science 329, 1081.10.1126/science.1185718 ()
    1. Austen-Smith D., Banks J. S. 1996. Information aggregation, rationality, and the condorcet jury theorem. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 90, 34–4510.2307/2082796 ()
    1. Woolley A. W., Chabris C. F., Pentland A., Hashmi N., Malone T. W. 2010. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330, 686–68810.1126/science.1193147 ()
    1. Brosnan S. F., de Waal F. B. M. 2002. A proximate perspective on reciprocal altruism. Hum. Nat. 13, 129–15210.1007/s12110-002-1017-2 ()
    1. Janis I. L. 1972. Victims of groupthink: a psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
    1. De Dreu C. K. W., Greer L. L., Handgraaf M. J. J., Shalvi S., Van Kleef G. A., Baas M., Ten Velden F. S., Van Dijk E., Feith S. W. W. 2010. The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans. Science 328, 1408–141110.1126/science.1189047 ()
    1. Phan K. L., Sripada C. S., Angstadt M., McCabe K. 2010. Reputation for reciprocity engages the brain reward center. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 13 099–13 104
    1. Rilling J. K., Gutman D. A., Zeh T. R., Pagnoni G., Berns G. S., Kilts C. D. 2002. A neural basis for social cooperation. Neuron 35, 395–40510.1016/S0896-6273(02)00755-9 ()
    1. Dabbs J. M., Hargrove M. F. 1997. Age, testosterone, and behavior among female prison inmates. Psychosom. Med. 59, 477–480
    1. Archer J. 2006. Testosterone and human aggression: an evaluation of the challenge hypothesis. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 30, 319–34510.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.12.007 ()
    1. Burnham T. C. 2007. High-testosterone men reject low ultimatum game offers. Proc. R. Soc. B 274, 2327–233010.1098/rspb.2007.0546 ()
    1. Hermans E. J., Putman P., van Honk J. 2006. Testosterone administration reduces empathetic behavior: a facial mimicry study. Psychoneuroendocrinology 31, 859–86610.1016/j.psyneuen.2006.04.002 ()
    1. van Honk J., Schutter D. J., Bos P. A., Kruijt A.-W., Lentjes E. G., Baron-Cohen S. 2011. Testosterone administration impairs cognitive empathy in women depending on second-to-fourth digit ratio. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA.10.1073/pnas.1011891108 ()
    1. Bos P. A., Terburg D., van Honk J. 2010. Testosterone decreases trust in socially naïve humans. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 9991–999510.1073/pnas.0911700107 ()
    1. Eisenegger C., Haushofer J., Fehr E. 2011. The role of testosterone in social interaction. Trends Cogn. Sci. 15, 263–27110.1016/j.tics.2011.04.008 ()
    1. Mazur A., Booth A. 1998. Testosterone and dominance in men. Behav. Brain Sci. 21, 353–363
    1. Fontani G., Lodi L., Felici A., Corradeschi F., Lupo C. 2004. Attentional, emotional and hormonal data in subjects of different ages. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 92, 452–461
    1. Sapienza P., Zingales L., Maestripieri D. 2009. Gender differences in financial risk aversion and career choices are affected by testosterone. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 15 268–15 27310.1073/pnas.0907352106 ()
    1. Janowsky J. S., Chavez B., Orwoll E. 2011. Sex steroids modify working memory. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 12, 407–41410.1162/089892900562228 ()
    1. Postma A., Meyer G., Tuiten A., van Honk J., Kessels R. P., Thijssen J. 2000. Effects of testosterone administration on selective aspects of object-location memory in healthy young women. Psychoneuroendocrinology 25, 563–57510.1016/S0306-4530(00)00010-X ()
    1. Hermans E. J., Bos P. A., Ossewaarde L., Ramsey N. F., Fernández G., van Honk J. 2010. Effects of exogenous testosterone on the ventral striatal BOLD response during reward anticipation in healthy women. NeuroImage 52, 277–28310.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.04.019 ()
    1. Coates J. M., Herbert J. 2008. Endogenous steroids and financial risk taking on a London trading floor. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 6167–617210.1073/pnas.0704025105 ()
    1. Eisenegger C., Naef M., Snozzi R., Heinrichs M., Fehr E. 2010. Prejudice and truth about the effect of testosterone on human bargaining behaviour. Nature 463, 356–35910.1038/nature08711 ()
    1. Geere G., Jones J., Atherden S. M., Grant D. B. 1980. Plasma androgens after a single oral dose of testosterone undecanoate. Arch. Dis. Child. 55, 218–22010.1136/adc.55.3.218 ()
    1. Katz M., De Sanctis V., Vullo C., Wonke B., McGarrigle H. H., Bagni B. 1993. Pharmacokinetics of sex steroids in patients with beta thalassaemia major. Br. Med. J. 46, 660–664
    1. Houwing N. S., Maris F., Schnabel P. G., Bagchus W. M. 2003. Pharmacokinetic study in women of three different doses of a new formulation of oral testosterone undecanoate, Andriol Testocaps. Pharmacotherapy 23, 1257–126510.1592/phco.23.12.1257.32707 ()
    1. Green D. M., Swets J. A. 1966. Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York, NY: Wiley
    1. Wingfield J. C., Hegner R. E., Dufty A. M., Ball G. F. 1990. The ‘Challenge Hypothesis’: theoretical implications for patterns of testosterone secretion, mating systems, and breeding strategies. Am. Nat. 136, 829–84610.1086/285134 ()
    1. Ketterson E. D., Nolan V. 1994. Male parental behavior in birds. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 25, 601–62810.1146/annurev.es.25.110194.003125 ()
    1. Slamecka N. J. 1963. Choice reaction-time as a function of meaningful similarity. Am. J. Psychol. 76, 274–28010.2307/1419164 ()
    1. Muller M. N., Wrangham R. W. 2004. Dominance, aggression and testosterone in wild chimpanzees: a test of the ‘challenge hypothesis’. Anim. Behav. 67, 113–12310.1016/j.anbehav.2003.03.013 ()
    1. Sachser N., Pröve E. 1986. Social status and plasma-testosterone-titers in male guinea pigs (Cavia aperes f. Porcellus). Ethology 71, 103–11410.1111/j.1439-0310.1986.tb00576.x ()
    1. Clark M. M., Galef B. G. 1999. A testosterone-mediated trade-off between parental and sexual effort in male mongolian gerbils (meriones unguiculatus). J. Comp. Psychol. 113, 388–39510.1037/0735-7036.113.4.388 ()
    1. Alvergne A., Faurie C., Raymond M. 2009. Variation in testosterone levels and male reproductive effort: insight from a polygynous human population. Horm. Behav. 56, 491–49710.1016/j.yhbeh.2009.07.013 ()
    1. Aarts H., van Honk J. 2009. Testosterone and unconscious positive priming increase human motivation separately. Neuroreport 20, 1300–130310.1097/WNR.0b013e3283308cdd ()
    1. Fleming S. M., Weil R. S., Nagy Z., Dolan R. J., Rees G. 2010. Relating introspective accuracy to individual differences in brain structure. Science 329, 1541–154310.1126/science.1191883 ()
    1. Asch S. E. 1951. Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In Groups, leadership and men (ed. H. Guetzkow), pp. 177–190. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press

Source: PubMed

3
订阅